Re: So is this guy a Canadian or not.
 

So far arguments sake the court establishes he is not a Canadian citizen. Obviously we can't force India to acknowledge he is an Indian citizen or issue him with a travel document so what happens to him? Chances are Canada will allow him to stay if we can't remove him but Canada could say OK we will let you stay but we are under no obligation to issue you with any travel document. Have a nice stay in Canada. We will class you as being a stateless person but you are not exempt from paying taxes etc etc.
There again CIC could try this
Country of removal

241. (1) If a removal order is enforced under section 239, the foreign national shall be removed to
(a) the country from which they came to Canada;
(b) the country in which they last permanently resided before coming to Canada;
(c) a country of which they are a national or citizen; or
(d) the country of their birth.
Marginal note:Removal to another country

(2) If none of the countries referred to in subsection (1) is willing to authorize the foreign national to enter, the Minister shall select any country that will authorize entry within a reasonable time and shall remove the foreign national to that country.

Plus he can't claim Refugee status.
Interesting to see what happens.

Re: So is this guy a Canadian or not.
 

In other words, it's Canada's problem. No other country would take him. And although Canada can put diplomatic pressure on other countries to issue travel documents to their own citizens, Canada has no means to insist another country confer citizenship on a stateless person who happens to be in Canada.

Canada doesn't grant Canadian citizenship to any of the millions of stateless people in countries other than Canada, so it's not clear why Canada should expect any other country to grant citizenship to a stateless person located in Canada.

So either way, a person in this situation gets to stay in Canada. Canada can deny the rights of citizenship, the rights to work, study or claim social benefits. They could even place such an individual in immigration detention. But a stateless person located within Canada's boundaries cannot be removed from the country.

Re: So is this guy a Canadian or not.
 

You're equating a criminal offence with deportation - there is no comparison, this is my main problem with how Canada seems to be approaching it at present, i.e. deportation is being equated with punishment for a crime.

Deportation is a civil proceeding, the punishment imposed by the court for the criminal offence is separate.

So if Johnny grows up to be a criminal, if he's Canadian he gets say a year in prison, if he's not Canadian, he gets a year in prison and then is also deported. That doesn't make sense to me and it's wrong in law essentially.

Don't understand your point really but it doesn't matter where they're from really if they arrived as children - in essence they are Canadian as they went to school here, grew up here, etc. That's the reason I don't think they should be deported, where they came from originally is academic in that determination.

Well C-24 is now law I think so if anything it's going to get worse, because that Vietnamese gangster who was shipped off to Vietnam even though he'd lived in Canada since the age of three, now would also be deported even if he was Canadian (assuming Vietnam recognizes dual citizenship), they'd just strip him of his citizenship.

Dicking about with people's citizenship is just wrong imo, I don't care what they've done. Now that Canada has this law and the UK has this law too, you could end up with a situation where they simultaneously remove citizenship so the person could end up stateless, theoretically.

There are actual situations that seem to have been devised by the Home Office to remove someone's British citizenship so they get trapped in a specific third country and can be killed in a drone attack!

Re: So is this guy a Canadian or not.
 

But they don't, which appears to be the sticking point. It's just a very arcane law that no-one thought about. I don't know what the law was back then but you can work on a work permit for another employer now if you lose the original job, to the expiry date and as we were discussing previously, the employer has no obligation to perform any check at all on new employees other than collecting their SIN.

It's especially ridiculous because in this case, unlike others, his parents did naturalize. So it appears to boil down to the action of law, as an Indian citizen and minor, he could have gotten citizenship through his parents application. But they didn't put him on it because they thought he already had it.

Crazy.

Re: So is this guy a Canadian or not.
 

Oh they can be, read up on that link to the articles from the National Post, there's all kinds of tricks they use to remove people. E.g. bribing officials in foreign third countries through third parties to accept them.

I doubt they would do it in this case though.

Re: So is this guy a Canadian or not.
 

Not sure how you reach this conclusion. Surely if that's the way the law is drafted, and the constitutionality of that law has not been successfully challenged, then it cannot be said to be wrong in law. It might be morally indefensible, and repugnant from a humanitarian perspective, but that's what the law says. If you do not take citizenship, you cannot currently expect to be treated the same under the law as a citizen. How long you have been in Canada is not relevant.

In this case, of course, it is complicated by the fact that having been issued a passport, this guy had every reason to believe he was, in fact, a Canadian citizen and therefore would not be deported. If he had known, or could reasonably be expected to have known, that he was not a citizen he could have taken steps to apply for citizenship (if his parents' diplomatic status was terminated and they took private employment, presumably they had the appropriate paperwork to do so and their son was listed on that as a minor child?).

His best defence would seem to be that, as he had been issued a passport in good faith, he could not have applied for a citizenship he understood that he already held. I think he'd have a very realistic chance of winning that argument in court. Had he been told, before he entered on a life of crime, that he was not a Canadian citizen, he would presumably have had ample time to become a Canadian before he ever started dealing in cocaine.

I think, therefore, that my position is this: it is not unreasonable for the Government to reserve the right to deport PRs for reasons of criminality. What is unreasonable here is the Government's timeline in rescinding citizenship from an individual (to whom it had been conferred in good faith) only when his criminal inadmissability came to light.

Re: So is this guy a Canadian or not.
 

Not true.
Bill C-24 does not allow deprivation of Canadian citizenship based on criminal convictions. Except a particular schedule of offences that are terrorism or treason related.

Re: So is this guy a Canadian or not.
 

:goodpost:

Exactly. If his parents had known he wasn't Canadian, he would have been included on their application. Or he would have naturalised later in life. Either way, he thought he was Canadian, Canada gave him a passport reiterating that, which caused India to remove his Indian citizenship, now, Canada has said he is in fact not a citizen and now he is stateless. No matter what he did, that isn't right. India won't issue him a passport because he is not a citizen of India, no matter what the Canadian government says. What are they going to do, put him on a plane to Cameroon and try and leave him there? I see how well that worked for them the last time

Re: So is this guy a Canadian or not.
 

A bit off topic perhaps, but have a read through IRPA section 124:

So, what constitutes "due diligence" ? The Act does not say.

Re: So is this guy a Canadian or not.
 

This will become a very contentious issue as more investigators are allegedly being hired to audit employers. This was announced in yesterdays revamp of the TFW programme and it specifically mentioned this section for criminal investigation.
Taken from the announcement literature

More Criminal Investigations
Employers suspected of criminal activities under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) are referred to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). Investigations in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program could lead to charges under the following sections of the IRPA:

s. 124 – employing a foreign national that is not authorized to work in Canada;
s. 126 – counselling misrepresentation; and
s. 127 – misrepresentation.

Watch all the lawyers be in outrage then telling their clients to seek solicitor client privilege in regards to their records. That gem was actually said to me by an Immigration lawyer yesterday.

Re: So is this guy a Canadian or not.
 

Haven't bothered reading every post in this thread and been a while since i read the article in the papers.

But where are, his parents living?

Re: So is this guy a Canadian or not.
 

It appears that the parents remained in Canada, and subsequently became permanent residents and later on, Canadian citizens, they should have a CIC file. Which may contain information that is relevant to this situation.

And if the parents had diplomatic immunity at the time, Foreign Affairs would be aware of it.

An arcane law? Perhaps, although it was passed by the Canadian Parliament back in 1977. The issue is that it excludes from Canadian citizenship by birth not only those born to parents with diplomatic/official status (reasonable) but also those born to employees of such persons (less clear).

It would be expected that there should be a lot of detailed discussion around this in CIC's operation manual, but there isn't:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resourc...cp09-eng.pdf44

What this means is that the law regarding Canadian citizenship by birth for those born to employees of those in diplomatic/official status has not been subject to much official thought before now. And if the Canadian courts decide that this individual is not a Canadian citizen, the ruling will extend to anyone else with a similar status. It cannot be selective.

Re: So is this guy a Canadian or not.
 

Canada. They are now Canadian citizens. The big issue is when he was born in Canada did he become a Canadian citizen as if his parents were working for the High Commission of India at the time of his birth then that is the exemption to the rule. This is why lawyers have a field day with poorly drafted legislation though it means more money for them LOL.

Re: So is this guy a Canadian or not.
 

Wasn't this law passed under a Liberal government (1976-77)?

Re: So is this guy a Canadian or not.
 

Under the ruling of that ever popular PM Pierre Trudeau.
Why is legislation written by lawyers for only lawyers to understand :lol:
Seriously they expect minions like me to understand it or make decisions that can be challenged.
How about plain English please;)